Top Searches:

Principle of Res Judicata

The purpose of this law is to debar a party from taking one issue time and again to save the opponent from being mired in perpetual litigation, say R D Sharma and Shanti K Ray.

| Jun 21, 2004, 15:16 IST

We have often seen lawyers arguing in courts that the suit is struck by the principle of 'res judicata'. If this plea is accepted by the Bench, in principle, the case in question is rejected right at the stage of admission itself. According to the dictionary meaning, 'res judicata' means a case or suit involving a particular issue between two or more parties already decided by a court. Thereafter, if either of the parties approaches the same court for the adjudication of the same issue, the suit will be struck by the law of 'res judicata'. The rule of 'res judicata' is based on the conditions of public policy. It envisages that finality should attach to the binding decisions of the court so that the individuals should not be made to face the same litigation twice. In cases involving income tax or sales tax, the general trend is not to apply the doctrine of 'res judicata'. As explained by the Supreme Court in Instalment Supply (Pvt) Ltd, Vs Union of India (AIR 1976 SC 53), 'each year's assessment is final only for that year and does not govern later years, because it determines only the tax for a particular period. However, it doesn't mean that tax authorities can reopen arbitrarily a question previously settled. The principle of 'res judicata' has been held to apply to industrial adjudication when a matter in dispute in a subsequent case had earlier been directly and substantially in issue between the same parties and it had been heard and finally decided by the tribunal. The reason for this view is that multiplication of litigation, agitation and re-agitation of the same dispute between the same parties is not conducive to industrial pace. However, in applying this principle, extreme technical considerations, usually invoked in civil proceedings, may not be allowed to outweigh substantial justice to the parties in industrial adjudication (AIR 1974 SC 1132). This rule of law has been made applicable even to writ proceedings as well. The position, therefore, is that when once a writ petition has been moved in a high court or Supreme Court (SC), and has been rejected there on merits, then a subsequent writ cannot be moved in the same court on the same cause of action (M S M Sharma Vs Sinha, AIR 1960 SC 1186). If the petitioner seeks to urge some new grounds which he has failed to do before in the earlier petition, the matter cannot be agitated in a subsequent petition because of 'constructive res judicata'. In case, this rule is not applied to such proceedings, a party can go on filing one writ petition after another urging one or two new grounds each time, thus causing hardship to the opponent. What operates as 'res judicata' is the decision and not the reasons advanced by the court in support of its decision. (AIR 1968 SC 1370). It, however, needs mention that 'constructive res judicata' applies to civil proceedings and not to habeas corpus petitions. A subsequent petition under this writ jurisdiction can be filed on fresh grounds not pleaded earlier for the same relief (AIR 1982 S C 53). Even the Supreme Court can still entertain a petition under Article 32, whether or not new grounds are raised, in view of the importance of personal freedom. But, when a writ petition is withdrawn by the petitioner conceding the futility of the case as a ground for withdrawal and court allows it on the plea, a second petition will be barred by 'res judicata' (AIR 1975 Guj 183). A fresh petition is possible onlyif the court gives liberty for doing so. There is some confusion on the point whether 'res judicata' applies when a writ petition is dismissed without the court making a speaking order. The apex court has held in a case that this doctrine should not operate in such a case. In Hoshnak Singh Vs India, the SC has ruled clearly that 'where a petition under Article 226 is dismissed in limine without a speaking order', such a dismissal would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition. A high court can only review a decision where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. But, this power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the earlier decision was erroneous on merits. If a person goes first to a high court under Article 226 and his petition is dismissed on merits, he cannot approach the SC under Article 32 because of 'res judicata'. He can reach the SC only by way of appeal. If, however, high court dismisses his or her writ petition not on merits, then 'res judicata' does not apply and petitioner can move the SC.

All Comments ()+^ Back to Top

Characters Remaining: 3000

Continue without login

or

Login from existing account

FacebookGoogleEmail

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive. Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.